John Richardson

[Wickerman]

Different people will reach different conclusions, as always. I have said previously that he chose not to offer a revised estimate, which is unfortunate for all of us, because that might have prevented this entire discussion!

Once he qualified his ToD, and did not offer an alternative, then he allowed the witness evidence to be considered seriously. This surprises me because he was a very experienced person, and would surely have realised this would happen. So if he really didn't think the witness evidence should be treated seriously, why did he not give a revised ToD, and make his opinion clear to the Coroner? I find his silence rather strange, and unexpected. His qualification demanded a second ToD estimate to clarify his opinion, and we didn't get it.

Anyway, as fascinating as this is, it's bedtime, goodnight!

Sleep tight.

So, with respect to your last question. It looks to me the doctor did not go to the inquest with the intention of giving a caveat. He was quite confident that the tables or graphs he used would be sufficient to give the coroner a reasonable time of death.

I suggest he was as surprised by the witness testimony as he could be that he did not expect to be forced to revise his calculations, which he could not do at the inquest.
He was perhaps astounded to hear a witness insist on the body not being there when his calculations suggested it should have been.
As a consequence he felt it necessary to offer a caveat, he knew what may have caused his calculations to go askew. So the best he could do was offer the caveat and leave it at that.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Did he test one limb, and use that as a general indication of the others ...

However, without being positive that Dr. Phillips tested and detected stiffness in multiple limbs, as opposed to detecting stiffness in only one limb and therefore concluding that rigor mortis was progressing in all of them ...

It seems that he did test more than one limb:

Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.

[Herlock Sholmes]

The importance behind claiming 'Dr Phillips stated he could have been wrong when giving his TOD range' is that it is an attempt to claim Dr Phillips wasn't firm in his belief of 'at least two hours and probably more'. From there, it is used to negate the likelihood of an earlier TOD.

The question put to Dr Phillips was not 'could you be wrong?', rather it was: 'how long had the deceased been dead when you saw her?'. Whether or not Dr Phillips 'could have been wrong' was irrelevant given that we can all be wrong in any and every situation.

Of course Dr Phillips could have been wrong, of course Dr Phillips knew he could have been wrong. There are no absolute truths in this world and Dr Phillips was an educated man who would have known that.

In the context of this discussion, however, there is a big difference between Dr Phillips knowing he could have been wrong and Dr Phillips stating he could have been wrong in that sentence. The reason being, it manipulates his firm belief of 'at least two hours' into something entirely different and far more whimsical and more easily brushed aside.

The only ‘manipulation’ that’s being done is by you. The meaning of the caveat is obvious and it’s why you are in such a small minority in clinging to you biased interpretation. An interpretation you only support because you’ve long ago made up your mind that Chapman must have been killed earlier. Consequently every piece of evidence is warped and twisted to that effect. Assumptions of witnesses lying, assumptions of witnesses being chronically stupid and now a twisting of the obvious meaning of the caveat. Something that’s been explained to you in detail and yet you haven’t responded to those details.

From a previous post:


“I should say at least two hours, and probably more;”

Phillips has made his point perfectly clearly. He has no need for further comment.

but

Ah there’s a ‘but.’ I wonder why? Let’s look at the dictionary definition of ‘but’ shall we chaps?

- used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned.

Ooooh, contrasting. Let’s see what contrasting means shall we?

- differing strikingly.

Oh, I see……so Dr. Gandalf Phillips is about the tell us something which contrasts to “I should say at least two hours, and probably more;”

All straight forward stuff then.

Now…..here comes the contrasting part.

it is right to say that it was a fairly cold morning, and that the body would be more apt to cool rapidly from its having lost the greater portion of its blood.

So when the body cools quicker than normal it reduces the time between the committal of the murder and the Doctors examination.

Now let’s just be clear shall we? It doesn’t increase the gap……pushing the ToD earlier. It reduces the gap and so pushing the ToD later.

But you suggest that the caveat means "At least two hours and probably more but due to the fairly cold morning I cannot be certain on nor quantify that probably more"

This is utterly bizarre because the part about the more rapid cooling can only have reduced the gap pointing to a later ToD.

I don’t for a single second think that you’re just misinterpreting this. You are doing this quite deliberately because you are constantly trying to twist the evidence.

Anyone that says that the evidence points to an earlier ToD is simply wrong. Categorically wrong. And in some cases deliberately and knowingly trying to manipulate their opinions into place.

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

Sleep tight.

So, with respect to your last question. It looks to me the doctor did not go to the inquest with the intention of giving a caveat. He was quite confident that the tables or graphs he used would be sufficient to give the coroner a reasonable time of death.

I suggest he was as surprised by the witness testimony as he could be that he did not expect to be forced to revise his calculations, which he could not do at the inquest.
He was perhaps astounded to hear a witness insist on the body not being there when his calculations suggested it should have been.
As a consequence he felt it necessary to offer a caveat, he knew what may have caused his calculations to go askew. So the best he could do was offer the caveat and leave it at that.

That is what I was driving at in # 5878 and # 5880.

In that case, what importance should be attached to his caveat?

It does not truly support the witnesses' evidence but, rather, reflects it!

[JeffHamm]

This is equally as illogical as that which you believe Dr Phillips intended.

1) You acknowledge you're claiming that Dr Phillips intended: at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours.
2) You think there is something strange in this. Rather than acknowledge that it is your interpretation of Dr Phillips' statement that is strange, you claim it is my presentation of your interpretation that is strange even though you agree that my presentation of your interpretation is accurate.

'Strange old world.

By the way, Dr Phillips didn't say: "I estimated 2 hours", he said: "at least two hours", which is entirely different because "at least" means the minimum time possible in the English language, and that is pertinent to the whole discussion.

I'm claiming that your awkward phrasing of "at least two hours and probably more but possibly less than at least two hours" does semantically mean the same thing as if he said "at least two hours and probably more, but I am not firm on that" (note, given you are not presenting his actual words, I'm also presenting an example that doesn't quote him exactly; the quote marks are to denote the phrasings we are each using, although I've used others, such as "at least two hours and probably more, but I wouldn't bet on it", for example).

Your presentation employs sophistry, which is the technique of using presentation style in loo of argument to try and bias people towards your viewpoint. You present the concept, which is an entirely normal one, in a very unusual sentence structure in order to try and convince people that it is the concept that is usual. It's not, people very often will given opinions and then qualify their degree of confidence in it, or indicate that the opinion offered should be viewed with some degree of caution.

That is all Dr. Phillips was doing, and he was absolutely right to do so, given the circumstances. It is also clear this is how it was taken at the time, as pointed out by the coroner's summing up of Dr. Phillips testimony on this point.

No amount of sophistry, however, negates the fact that it is par for the course for people to give qualified opinions, where they make a claim and then indicate that they accept that claim may not be correct. As such, your argument that Dr. Phillips doing this is nonsense is false, and just because you have found an awkward way to put the semantics, using words that Dr. Phillips did not, doesn't mean anything. Phrasing awkwardly statements that otherwise clear statements are is simply not an argument.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

That is what I was driving at in # 5878 and # 5880.

In that case, what importance should be attached to his caveat?

It does not truly support the witnesses' evidence but, rather, reflects it!

It's not like he had a choice, Chandler had already told the court about Richardson saying he was there at 4:45, and no body was in the yard then.
Phillips was asked how long the body had been dead when he saw her - Phillips is on the spot now. He can't screw up his testimony and put it in his pocket. He has to carry on regardless and speak of his conclusions. The best he can do is offer the caveat.
He's bound to be feeling embarrassed, the coroner will expect him to respond to the apparent conflict of his opinion as opposed to Richardson's testimony.

[JeffHamm]

It seems that he did test more than one limb:

Stiffness of the limbs was not marked, but it was commencing.

I think you need to re-read my post. I covered that point, and pointed out how his statement does not mean he tested more than one limb, it only means he concluded that stiffness of the limbs was not marked, which he could have inferred by testing one limb and generalizing to the others. Or, he may have detected stiffness in one limb, not another, hence "not marked", and so forth. I don't know, nor am I claiming to know, what he did because what he actually did, or when he did it, is not something that has been recorded for us to examine. He may have tested multiple limbs, he may not have and generalised from only testing one; if he did test more than one, he may have detected stiffness in only one, as it was "not marked" and so could be below the threshold of detection in the other but he would presume it was progressing in that limb as well, and so forth. I'm simply suggesting one should not be quick to make any assumptions on those points.

- Jeff

[PRIVATE INVESTIGATOR 1]

It's not like he had a choice, Chandler had already told the court about Richardson saying he was there at 4:45, and no body was in the yard then.
Phillips was asked how long the body had been dead when he saw her - Phillips is on the spot now. He can't screw up his testimony and put it in his pocket. He has to carry on regardless and speak of his conclusions. The best he can do is offer the caveat.
He's bound to be feeling embarrassed, the coroner will expect him to respond to the apparent conflict of his opinion as opposed to Richardson's testimony.

I agree.

But does that not give the caveat something like the character of a rationalisation?

[JeffHamm]

You have been making this strange claim for some considerable time, and I assume you are referring to Jeff's most recent post, where I did not notice him concluding that Phillips said or meant "at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than two hours."

Hi Doctored Whatsit,

When Phillips basically says "I estimated 2+ hours, but I could have overestimated the interval", he is basically conveying the same semantic information as contained in FM's rather idiosyncratic presentation of "at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than two hours." - He's saying "At least 2 hours, probably more, but given I could have overestimated it, it is possible that the interval was shorter than 2 hours."

FM's peculiar phrasing is what makes it sound odd, but the underlying gist of what he's put is the same as saying "I think it was at least 2 hours, but I wouldn't bet on it", which is also to say the interval could possibly be less than 2 hours. Because FM's phrasing is not reflective of how people speak, it makes the sentence sound bizarre despite than the meaning underlying it being common.

- Jeff

[Wickerman]

I agree.

But does that not give the caveat something like the character of a rationalisation?

I can't imagine Phillips making an irrational statement.
As soon as he hears Chandler say what he did, his brain is going to be ticking over to figure out why his calculations could be so far out.
He cannot offer an irrational solution.

[Wickerman]

When Phillips basically says "I estimated 2+ hours, but I could have overestimated the interval", he is basically conveying the same semantic information as contained in FM's rather idiosyncratic presentation of "at least two hours and probably more, but possibly less than two hours." - He's saying "At least 2 hours, probably more, but given I could have overestimated it, it is possible that the interval was shorter than 2 hours."

Hi Jeff.

We are all debating the complete sentence from Phillips, when it is most likely the caveat is an afterthought, a reaction to what Chandler said.

So, Phillips full statement as he prepared it, on paper or in his mind, was simply:
"I should say at least two hours, and probably more".
That is all he had been prepared to say.

However, he now feels obliged to ad-lib a qualifier, it was not part of his original testimony.
We are here debating the two sentences as if they are one, when in reality they are two. So, he never originally planned to offer a caveat, he had no need until Chandler took the stand.
Some have complained why should he say the caveat at all, just revise his initial statement.
He can't, he does not fly by the seat of his pants, he's a professional, he came prepared with his scientific conclusions and he cannot change that.
He did not expect contesting testimony, he can only offer his best response to the apparent conflict.
Phillips obviously could not offer a revised time of death, that requires further calculations he has not come prepared with.

[GBinOz]

I think you need to re-read my post. I covered that point, and pointed out how his statement does not mean he tested more than one limb, it only means he concluded that stiffness of the limbs was not marked, which he could have inferred by testing one limb and generalizing to the others. Or, he may have detected stiffness in one limb, not another, hence "not marked", and so forth. I don't know, nor am I claiming to know, what he did because what he actually did, or when he did it, is not something that has been recorded for us to examine. He may have tested multiple limbs, he may not have and generalised from only testing one; if he did test more than one, he may have detected stiffness in only one, as it was "not marked" and so could be below the threshold of detection in the other but he would presume it was progressing in that limb as well, and so forth. I'm simply suggesting one should not be quick to make any assumptions on those points.

- Jeff

Hi Jeff,

This may be of use to your deliberations. It is from medicinenet.com

The sequence of appearance and disappearance of rigor mortis is muscles of the face and head, neck, chest, upper appendage, abdomen, and lower appendage.

Best regards, George

[GBinOz]

Hi Jeff.

We are all debating the complete sentence from Phillips, when it is most likely the caveat is an afterthought, a reaction to what Chandler said.

So, Phillips full statement as he prepared it, on paper or in his mind, was simply:
"I should say at least two hours, and probably more".
That is all he had been prepared to say.

However, he now feels obliged to ad-lib a qualifier, it was not part of his original testimony.
We are here debating the two sentences as if they are one, when in reality they are two. So, he never originally planned to offer a caveat, he had no need until Chandler took the stand.
Some have complained why should he say the caveat at all, just revise his initial statement.
He can't, he does not fly by the seat of his pants, he's a professional, he came prepared with his scientific conclusions and he cannot change that.
He did not expect contesting testimony, he can only offer his best response to the apparent conflict.
Phillips obviously could not offer a revised time of death, that requires further calculations he has not come prepared with.

Hi Jon,

A very good sequence of deductive reasoning. I particularly liked your description of the "ad lib" as a qualifier, rather than a caveat (Dictionary: a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.) as the qualifier was never described as a caveat at the time.

Since doctors are not renown for their willing acceptance of being corrected, what I wonder would he do to address this contradiction. I would suggest what is reported in the Echo on Sep 19. Confer with the police to determine exactly how Richardson could have missed the body.

Can you clarify a comment you made in an earlier post regarding this:
Swanson's report of 19 October, 1888:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

It has always been my impression that it was Richardson's testimony at the inquest regarding the knife that caught the attention of the police, and the coroner, but you indicated that this occurred before the inquest. Had it occurred before the inquest I feel sure that the police would have taken possession of the knife, which was the subject of a question by the coroner:
The Coroner-Has your knife been seen by the police?
The Witness-No, sir.
Have you got it with you?-No.
The Coroner-Go and get it.
The witness went away to obey this order, accompanied by a policeman.

Cheers, George

[Wickerman]

Hi Jon,

A very good sequence of deductive reasoning. I particularly liked your description of the "ad lib" as a qualifier, rather than a caveat (Dictionary: a warning or proviso of specific stipulations, conditions, or limitations.) as the qualifier was never described as a caveat at the time.

Hi George, so you're checking every word I write with a dictionary?
Slow day down under?

Since doctors are not renown for their willing acceptance of being corrected, what I wonder would he do to address this contradiction. I would suggest what is reported in the Echo on Sep 19. Confer with the police to determine exactly how Richardson could have missed the body.

It's a shame the press did not elaborate on the meeting, but then again the MET did not normally talk to the press.

Can you clarify a comment you made in an earlier post regarding this:
Swanson's report of 19 October, 1888:
"If the evidence of Dr. Phillips is correct as to time of death, it is difficult to understand how it was that Richardson did not see the body when he went into the yard at 4:45 a.m. but as his clothes were examined, the house searched and his statement taken in which there was not a shred of evidence, suspicion could not rest upon him, although police specially directed their attention to him."

It has always been my impression that it was Richardson's testimony at the inquest regarding the knife that caught the attention of the police, and the coroner, but you indicated that this occurred before the inquest. Had it occurred before the inquest I feel sure that the police would have taken possession of the knife, which was the subject of a question by the coroner:
The Coroner-Has your knife been seen by the police?
The Witness-No, sir.
Have you got it with you?-No.
The Coroner-Go and get it.
The witness went away to obey this order, accompanied by a policeman.

Cheers, George

Are you questioning why the police did not take the knife from him on the morning of the murder?
We don't know if he had the knife with him when he returned to see who had been murdered. We don't have a copy of his statement to see if he mentioned the knife, it doesn't look like he did mention it.
He does say he kept the knife at his home address in John St.
What is it that you are unsure about?

[JeffHamm]

Hi Jeff,

This may be of use to your deliberations. It is from medicinenet.com

The sequence of appearance and disappearance of rigor mortis is muscles of the face and head, neck, chest, upper appendage, abdomen, and lower appendage.

Best regards, George

Hi George,

Yes, rigor mortis tends to be more easily detected first in the eye lids, however, we only have a mention of limbs. It is unclear if he's referring to arms or legs, which makes evaluating things all the more complicated. For example, if he had said that rigor mortis was not marked, but commencing in the upper arm and was well established in the eye lids, we would have more confidence that the stiffness he noted was indeed rigor mortis. Unfortunately, as with so much in these cases, we are left with insufficient information to be sure what was done, what exactly the observations were, and therefore with what confidence we should place in the pro-offered opinion. If Dr. Phillips' opinion was based on the information we have available, a single time test where one (or more) limbs were not particularly stiff but stiff enough that he noted it, we have to consider the possibility that the stiffness might not even have been rigor mortis. That's because if that's what he did, then the information he himself had is insufficient to draw that conclusion with confidence. Of course, his conclusion is not inconsistent with his observations, so obviously he could be right, but there are too many alternatives for us to be sure he is right, so we should not whole heartedly throw our lot in with that conclusion. We can't dismiss it, nor do I hope I'm coming across as suggesting that, rather I'm just saying we shouldn't accept it as fact either. Furthemore, given the variability of how rigor mortis develops and progresses in different cases, even if we do consider his conclusion that the stiffness was the initial onset of rigor mortis, that can occur with sufficient frequency after an hour (or even less), that it does not differentiate between an early vs later ToD. I think it could be argued, that provided it is rigor mortis, it does favour an earlier ToD, but when one has two options, probabilistic data will sometimes favour one of them and sometimes it will favour the other. Of course, if the stiffness isn't rigor mortis at all, then it means nothing one way or the other. In the end, the final preference involves weighing up all of the information. And all of the medical information (put the witnesses aside) combined doesn't favour one over the other anywhere near enough to argue that Dr. Phillips' estimated ToD conflicts with the witnesses. That argument, when put forth to suggest the ToD must be earlier (or when used to argue that the witnesses must be wrong because they "conflict" with Dr. Phillips) is invalid - it is a false argument and should not be resorted to on that basis alone.

- Jeff